COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.

2. Challenging the common order dated 03.06.2021 passed in I.A.Nos.1364 and 1365 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.60 and 61 of 2012 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that the plaintiff filed two suits vide O.S.Nos.60 and 61 of 2012 seeking recovery of possession of property from the defendants, who included his brothers and Indus Palm Hotels and Resorts Ltd. He contended that his brothers had fraudulently obtained gift deeds of his property under duress and coercion but failed to make the agreed payments under an MOU. The plaintiff later sought amendments to the plaint to explicitly declare the gift deeds as null and void and for their cancellation, claiming the omission was due to financial constraints and drafting errors. However, the defendants opposed the amendments, stating that they were made with the intent to delay proceedings, that the claims were time-barred, and that the plaintiff had failed to exercise due diligence in raising these claims earlier. The defendants further submitted that allowing the amendments would change the nature of the suit and cause injustice to the defendants.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 03.06.2021 allowed the petitions observing that the proposed changes did not alter the nature of the suit but only clarified existing claims. The trial Court ruled that amendments should be permitted in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, subject to the plaintiff paying the required court fees.

5. Heard Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in allowing the amendment application filed by Respondent No.1, disregarding the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which mandates that amendments after the commencement of trial can only be allowed if the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. He further submitted that the amendment, sought at the fag end of the trial, introduces a time-barred cause of action, retrospectively altering the nature of the suit and prejudicing the Petitioner and that the relief for declaration and cancellation of the gift deed should have been sought within three years from its execution as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and allowing such an amendment after

12 years defeats the principles of finality and legal certainty.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court misinterpreted the judgments cited by respondent No.1, which do not apply to cases where an amendment introduces a new cause of action and that the order also violates Order II Rule 2 of CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as respondent No.1 knowingly omitted the relief of declaration and is now attempting to introduce it to overcome the bar of limitation. He further contended that the amendment gravely prejudices the Petitioner, as the trial has already been conducted based on the original pleadings, and allowing it would require reopening the entire case, forcing fresh pleadings, additional cross-examination, and new arguments, causing serious injustice.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons cited for the amendment, financial hardship and inadvertence in drafting, are vague, unsubstantiated, and frivolous, exposing it as a mere delaying tactic and abuse of the judicial process. Therefore, the amendment should have been rejected outright, and the decision of the trial must be set aside to prevent undue advantage to respondent No.1 and uphold the principles of natural justice. Hence, he prayed the Court to set asi